           |
|
- Commodity Challenges
Cite Court’s Mushroom Decision
- Commodity promotion boards are facing more challenges in the wake of the Supreme Court decision against the Mushroom Council.
Several federal marketing orders have been legally confronted since the June 25 decision in U.S. et al v. United Foods Inc. The high court may have opened the door to unseating several federal marketing orders when it struck down the mandatory advertising campaign.
The Florida Department of Citrus is the most recent to face a challenge. Attorneys representing five multinational fruit corporations filed a challenge to the constitutionality of the citrus department’s equalization tax.
The challenge, filed July 24, contests the tax placed on citrus products imported into the state for processing. Part of the complaint cites the mushroom case ruling on free speech.
The Livestock Marketing Association (LMA) has also filed a lawsuit contesting the beef checkoff program, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). The LMA had previously called for a revote to test the established federal checkoff.
In light of the court’s decision, LMA opted to elevate the issue to a constitutional question. “LMA did have the option of not elevating their complaint to include a question of the constitutionality of the beef checkoff program,” according to a recent release from the NCBA.
However, LMA’s choice to amend its lawsuit now jeopardizes the continuance of all national and state checkoff programs, including beef, according to the federal checkoff program.
Producer-funded checkoff programs have existed almost 80 years. The beef checkoff has existed for 20 years. In that time, the program has withstood two challenges, according to the NCBA.
In 1989 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held the beef checkoff to be constitutional in the case of United States v. Frame. Its constitutionality was again upheld in 1998 by the 10th Circuit Court in the case of United States v. Goetz.
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the Michigan Pork Producers Association (MPPA) have requested that a federal district judge determine the constitutionality of the pork checkoff, in addition to ruling on the legality of the settlement agreement between NPPC and the USDA. The supplemental complaint was filed July 20 in the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan.
“In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the mushroom checkoff case, we believe it is both pertinent and an efficient use of the court’s resources to settle the constitutional question now,” said NPPC President Barb Determan, a pork producer from Early, Iowa.
The two pork producer groups have asked the court to declare that the secretary of agriculture acted within her discretion and authority by entering into a settlement agreement that continued the pork checkoff program. The parties also asked the high court to affirm that that pork checkoff program does not violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
-
-
-
-
|
|
